“The whole of the West views Islam … through a Western cultural prism,” and that’s a problem, says British author and commentator Melanie Phillips.

With terrorism, extremism, and antisemitism surging throughout the West, people are looking for answers. They’re trying to understand why our leaders and institutions are failing to stand up to this threat.

Phillips, one of the clearest voices sounding the alarm about these issues, joins Inside Policy Talks to share her assessment of the problem.

As a journalist, Phillips has championed traditional values in the culture war for more than three decades. She is the author of numerous books, including her 2006 best-seller Londonistan, about the British establishment's capitulation to Islamist aggression. Her latest book, Fighting the Hate: A Handbook for Jews Under Siege, was released earlier this year.

On the podcast, she tells Casey Babb, director of The Promised Land at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, that the West’s “ignorance” of Islam is one of the key factors leading to the extremist threat going unchecked.

“They think (Islam) is a private matter between the individual and the Almighty,” says Phillips. “I'm sure that is part of the religion of Islam, but Islam is also a political project. … If you're a pious Muslim, you have a religious duty to Islamize the non-Islamic world.”

“The West can't get their heads around that at all.”

She says Western governments must show leadership by standing up for their own cultures.

“I don't think it's coincidence that governments that have gone down this bad road of not defending their culture properly have descended into – certainly, as far as Britain is concerned – a mire of absolute incompetence,” says Phillips. “They can no longer keep the show on the road.”

Last month, a major constitutional showdown took place before the Supreme Court of Canada. Over four days of hearings, the court heard from a record number of interveners in quite possibly the biggest and most consequential case since the Charter was adopted in 1982.

In the wake of these hearings, the justices will now deliberate on Hak v Quebec. It's a case that addresses the scope of rights and their limits, whether the Notwithstanding Clause is subject to any restrictions beyond proper application, and the balance of power between courts and legislatures.

Many are tempted to view this case through the lens of the law that's at issue: Quebec's controversial Bill 21, and whether it is right or wrong. But the stakes are far greater.

This case is really a question of who decides what the law means, how it is interpreted, and ultimately changed. However the court rules, the decision will shape Canadian politics for years to come.

At MLI, this is central to our Judicial Foundations Project, where we examine how courts, legislatures, and constitutional principles interact in Canada’s parliamentary democracy. These cases raise fundamental questions about whether that balance is being maintained, or fundamentally altered.

To discuss the Supreme Court hearings and what's at stake in the outcome, three leading experts join Inside Policy Talks.

Yuan Yi Zhu is a professor of International Law at Leiden University whose work focuses on constitutionalism, public law, and the limits of judicial power. He is a member of MLI’s Judicial Foundations Project.

Xavier Foccroulle Ménard is a lawyer with Stikeman Elliott, and a legal scholar specializing in constitutional law, rights adjudication, and the theory of the Charter.

And François Côté is a lawyer with Droits Collectifs Québec, an organization which is directly involved in the case as an intervener.

On the podcast, they discuss with Peter Copeland, deputy director of domestic policy at MLI, the key factors at play in this case and how they connect to Canada's growing culture of judicial activism.

As Canada continues its decade-long slide in the UN’s global happiness rankings, there’s growing questions about whether policymakers are even using the right metrics to measure the indicators of living a good life.

Across the developed world, there’s a similar, troubling pattern. The 2026 UN World Happiness Report, released earlier this month, suggests pronounced declines, particularly in Anglosphere countries. That includes Canada, which dropped to 25th spot in the rankings, while the United States sits at 23rd.

These findings come despite a general rise in material prosperity. While the UN survey moves beyond looking strictly at GDP, some organizations are calling for an even broader view.

To discuss this, Brendan Case, associate director for research at Harvard’s Human Flourishing Program, joins Inside Policy Talks. Case has been closely involved in shaping Harvard’s Global Flourish Study, a major international effort to better understand well-being across countries, cultures, and life stages. The study seeks to move beyond narrow economic measures of happiness.

On the podcast, he tells Peter Copeland, deputy director of domestic policy at MLI, that GDP is “an extremely coarse measure” even when it comes to looking at material wealth, and falls far short on capturing other kinds of well-being.

He says the UN survey also has its limits.

“I think that they have genuinely helped in moving the conversation beyond just a narrow fixation on ‘how can we generate more income?’” says Case. However, his team has been engaged in a “friendly debate” with the UN report’s editors on the best alternative mechanisms.

Case notes that the UN metrics ultimately come down to respondents giving a subjective assessment of how satisfied they are with their lives, while the Harvard study looks at a several concrete measures, like health, as determinants of respondents’ well-being.

Across the country, law and medical schools have adopted identity-based admissions criteria in the name of equity. But very little data has been available on how those policies work. New research from MLI is changing that. In a new paper on DEI and admissions in Canadian law and medical schools, researcher David Wand requested admissions data from 18 law schools and 14 medical schools. Only six law schools and eight medical schools agreed to share their data. Wand then compared applicants’ standardized test scores – such as the LSAT and MCAT – against actual admissions outcomes. To discuss his findings, Wand joins Inside Policy Talks. On the podcast, he tells Peter Copeland, deputy director of domestic policy at MLI, that race is a key factor in the admissions process, raising, he argues, serious questions about meritocracy. Based on these findings, he argues there is a better way forward and calls on provincial governments to ban race from the admissions process. “The ultimate goal here is to ban it and follow the lead of other multiracial democratic countries that also are concerned about historical disadvantages experienced by certain racial groups,” says Wand. He points to Scandinavian countries as an alternative model, noting that they do not consider race in admissions but instead support disadvantaged students earlier in the process through programs aimed at improving academic performance.

As the second week of war in Iran continues, there’s growing questions about whether regime change is possible, and what the end game looks like. The United States and Israel have taken out the long-time leader of Iran’s Islamic regime, Ali Khamenei. But with his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, now installed as the new supreme leader, the regime appears to have dug in for a long fight to retain power. Are the ongoing aerial strikes enough to permanently hobble the Iranian regime, and are Iran’s people ready to bring about a new government? Can the United States be counted on for continued military support if that’s what it takes to topple the regime? And, as Canada debates its own position on the war, what should Canadians understand about the risks posed by the regime – not only to the Middle East, but to global security more broadly? To share his on-the-ground knowledge of the Middle East, Israeli-based journalist and political commentator Nadav Eyal joins Inside Policy Talks. Eyal is a regular contributor to Call Me Back with Dan Senor and Amit Segal. On the podcast, he tells Casey Babb, director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s The Promised Land project, that one of the challenges when it comes to bringing about regime change is that many Westerners have become averse to longer processes because of the fast-moving news cycle. However, as a core part of its survival strategy, Iran’s Islamic regime was structured to withstand prolonged conflict because it always expected this type of war with the United States and Israel. “This was their prophecy all along,” says Eyal. “They built their country, their polity, around the idea of resistance, and now they are trying to resist.”

In the wake of the United States and Israel’s military actions against the Islamic regime in Iran, nations around the world rushed to stake out their positions on the strikes. While some voices condemned the attacks as a violation of international law, Canada issued a statement that drew some measure of surprise across the political spectrum — overhead of it being more supportive of the military actions than many anticipated. A statement released by the Prime Minister’s Office on the morning of February 28 in the hours following the initial attacks, declared that: “The Islamic Republic of Iran is the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East, has one of the world’s worst human rights records, and must never be allowed to obtain or develop nuclear weapons.” It went on to say that: “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.” However, in Prime Minister Mark Carney’s more recent comments on March 3, he added that Canada takes this position with “regret” on the grounds that the conflict is “another example of the failure of the international order,” seeming to temper his initial support. So, how should Canadians interpret the words of their prime minister, and how might his statements land south of the border? Is Carney’s initial support a reversal of the worldview he outlined in his high-profile Davos speech earlier this year — or, in fact, a logical extension of it? How long is Canada’s supportive posture likely to hold in the wake of domestic pressures or further global events? Are we already starting to see that shift occur in subsequent remarks from the government? To unpack this, political scientist Rob Huebert joins Inside Policy Talks. Huebert is the director of the University of Calgary’s Centre for Military, Security, and Strategic Studies, and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. On the podcast, he tells Ian Campbell, digital editor at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, that he sees Carney’s initial statement on the events in Iran as being aligned with the positions he expressed in Davos.

As the United States tightens its blockade to cut off oil from Cuba’s communist regime, some are calling for Canada to step in with aid. These events come at a moment of rapidly shifting geopolitics around the world. Yet Canada’s approach to Cuba remains strikingly unchanged. For decades, Ottawa has treated Cuba with kid gloves, applying a softer touch than it does with other authoritarian regimes. Yet Cuba is a strategic actor embedded in an emerging authoritarian alignment that includes Russia, China, and Venezuela. So the question is: in a world increasingly defined by strategic competition and authoritarian coordination, can Canada continue to treat Cuba as an exception? And if not – what are the implications for Canada’s foreign policy, global credibility, and national security? To share their deep understanding of the conditions in Cuba – and how the communist regime factors into the global security context – Sarah Teich and Michael Lima join Inside Policy Talks. Teich is an international human rights lawyer, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and co-founder and president of Human Rights Action Group. Lima is a researcher and director of Democratic Spaces, an NGO advocating for Canadian solidarity with Cuban civil society. He’s a leading voice on Cuba’s role in authoritarian coordination across Latin America. Together, they are co-authors (along with Isabelle Terranova) of a newly published MLI commentary: Canada’s Cuba Blind Spot. On the podcast, they tell Christopher Coates, director of foreign policy, national defence, and national security at MLI, that Canada’s current approach to Cuba serves neither Canadians nor Cubans. Teich describes the “collaboration” that takes place between Cuba and other authoritarian regimes like the Chinese and Russian governments, and how Canada leaves itself vulnerable to this bloc by not levying sanctions across the board. “It creates very clear gaps for the entire authoritarian block to exploit … and they do so very effectively,” says Teich. “Canada’s failure to address Cuba's human rights abuses and authoritarian links is not only a moral failing, but a strategic one.” Lima adds that the humanitarian crisis in Cuba is “manufactured” by its government, and any strategy to aid the Cuban people must account for this reality. “We have to see that the Cuban people are like those that are kidnapped,” he says. “The ultimate goal is that those kidnapped are free.”

There’s a growing debate in Canada about balancing the relationship between courts and legislatures.

For nearly four decades, one Supreme Court ruling has loomed large in shaping an aspect of this debate: how conflicts between rights – and their limitations – are determined in Canada.

That case – R v Oakes, decided in 1986 – gave Canadian jurisprudence the famous “Oakes test,” which courts still use to assess whether limits on Charter rights are justified.

The test is widely cited. But critics argue it’s become confusing, unpredictable, and undermines the historic power legislatures are meant to share in the construction of rights.

That’s why a new paper published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute – titled Renovating Oakes: Why Section 1 Justifies Reasonable Limits and Not Infringements on Charter Rights – says the Oakes test is in need of a “renovation.”

The authors of that paper, Gerard Kennedy and Geoffrey Sigalet, joined Inside Policy Talks to make that case.

Gerard Kennedy is an associate professor and associate dean at the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Law. He’s also a constitutional lawyer with extensive experience in public law and Charter litigation.

Geoffrey Sigalet is an associate professor of political science at the University of British Columbia and director of the UBC Research Group for Constitutional Law.

On the podcast, they tell Mark Mancini, an MLI senior fellow and assistant professor at Thompson Rivers University Faculty of Law, that when it comes to the Oakes test, courts have drifted away from the Charter’s original logic.

“People are not skeptical enough about what happens in courts, and they are extremely skeptical about what happens in legislatures,” says Sigalet. “And I don't think that they're wrong sometimes about the legislatures. I just think we should be applying our skepticism a bit more evenly.”

A series of global shocks is testing the character and resilience of the West.

In recent weeks, debate has intensified over whether the rules-based international order is fraying. Tariff threats, talk of annexing sovereign territory, and reports of a new “strategic partnership” between Canada and China have all fuelled concern. At the same time, Western elites and the media class seem to be losing their moral compass – with much of the political and media establishment slow to call out the dangers of Islamic extremism despite an uprising being repressed by the Islamic regime in Iran, and a horrific attack at Bondi Beach in Australia.

Canada has so far avoided a Bondi Beach-style attack inspired by Islamic extremism. But on February 10, 2026, five days after the recording of this episode, one of the largest mass shootings in Canadian history took place at Tumbler Ridge, BC, underscoring the broader security challenges facing Western nations.

To unpack these interconnected challenges, former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott joins Inside Policy Talks. Abbott, who served as Australia’s 28th prime minister from 2013 to 2015, has not shied away from speaking with moral clarity on these issues – particularly in the aftermath of the Bondi Beach attack, which saw two ISIS-inspired gunmen open fire on a large Hanukkah celebration, killing 15 and injuring more than 40 attendees.

On the episode, he shares his views with former Canadian Member of Parliament Kevin Vuong – who is no stranger to the increasingly brazen actions of the West's adversaries. In Vuong’s case, he was targeted by the Chinese Communist regime.

Abbott tells Vuong that “the problem with the doctrine of multiculturalism” is that it “encourage(s) migrants to stay separate from the country that they've entered.”

“It’s my fundamental position that we do no one any favours – we don’t do the existing population, we don’t do the new migrants any favors – if we try to dilute the Anglo-Celtic core culture and water down the fundamentally Judeo-Christian ethos which have made our countries … so attractive,” says Abbott.

Canada is at a turning point in how it governs the digital economy and artificial intelligence. It must do so in the face of rapidly changing technology – a challenge that’s compounded by geopolitical tensions and economic stress. Over the past few years, Ottawa has attempted to moved quickly on competition law, online harms, and AI. This comes after previous measures on online harms and AI faced criticism and were eventually paused, but these are now back on the table. While it’s clear these areas need attention, there are serious concerns about state overreach, enforcement capacity, and whether we’re regulating technologies we barely understand. At the same time, Canada is facing weak productivity, sluggish innovation, and growing pressure to secure its economic and national security in a more volatile world. To share his perspective on how to navigate this, André Côté joins Inside Policy Talks. Côté serves as interim executive director at the Dias Institute, where he works at the intersection of technology, governance, and public policy. He’s a leading voice on how governments can regulate digital markets and AI with institutional realism, democratic legitimacy, and restraint – without ignoring real harms. On the podcast, he tells Peter Copeland, deputy director of domestic policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, that Canada’s “deep dependence on foreign tech” is not only an economic issue, “it’s also a deep sovereignty issue for us.”